LIBRARY 


University  of  California. 


GIFT    OF 


Class 


A  LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 


A  RECTORIAL  ADDRESS 

DELIVERED  TO  THE 

STUDENTS  IN  THE 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ST.  ANDREWS 

17th  OCTOBER,  1905 


BY 


ANDREW  CARNEGIE 


The  New  York  Peace  Society 

507  Fifth  Avenue 

1911 


A   LEAGUE  OF  PEACE 


A  RECTORIAL  ADDRESS 


DELIVERED   TO   THE 


Students  in  the  University  of  St.  Andrews 
17th  October,  1905 


ANDREW   CARNEGIE,  Esq.,LL.D. 


The  New  York  Peace  Society 

507  Fifth  Avenue 

1911 


o,^^ 


S- 


^ 


Rectorial  Address 

Principal  and  Students  of  St.  Andrews:  My 
first  words  must  be  words  of  thanks,  very  grateful 
thanks,  to  those  who  have  so  kindly  re-elected  me 
their  Rector  without  a  contest.  The  honor  is  deeply 
appreciated,  I  assure  you.  There  is  one  feature,  at 
least,  connected  with  your  choice,  upon  which  I  may 
venture  to  congratulate  you,  and  also  the  Univer- 
sity,— the  continuance  of  the  services  of  my  able  and 
zealous  assessor.  Dr.  Ross  of  Dunfermline,  which  I 
learn  are  highly  valued. 

My  young  constituents,  you  are  busily  preparing 
to  play  your  parts  in  the  drama  of  life,  resolved,  I 
trust,  to  oppose  and  attack  what  is  evil,  to  defend 
and  strengthen  what  is  good,  and,  if  possible,  to  leave 
your  part  of  the  world  a  little  better  than  you  found 
it.  You  are  already  pondering  over  the  career  you 
will  pursue,  what  problems  you  will  study,  upon 
what,  and  how,  your  powers  can  be  most  profitably 
exerted;  and  apart  from  the  choice  of  a  career  I 
trust  you  ask  yourselves  what  are  the  evils  of  this 
life,  in  which  all  our  duties  lie,  which  you  should  most 
strenuously  endeavor  to  eradicate  or  at  least  to 
lessen, — ^what  causes  you  will  espouse,  giving  prefer- 
ence to  these  beyond  all  other  public  questions,  for 
the  Student  of  St.  Andrews  is  expected  to  devote  both 
time  and  labor  to  his  duties  as  a  citizen,  whatever 
his  professional  career.  You  will  find  the  world  much 
better  than  your  forefathers  did.  There  is  profound 
satisfaction  in  this,  that  all  grows  better;  but  there 
is  still  one  evil  in  our  day,  so  far  exceeding  any  other 


222262 


in  extent '  aiid' ^-ffee^/rfiat  I'rVenture  to  bring  it  to 
your  notice. 

Polygamy  and  slavery  have  been  abolished  by 
civilized  nations.  Duelling  no  longer  exists  where 
English  is  spoken.  The  right  of  private  war  and  of 
privateering  have  passed  away.  Many  other  benefi- 
cent abolitions  have  been  made  in  various  fields ;  but 
there  still  remains  the  foulest  blot  that  has  ever  dis- 
graced the  earth,  the  killing  of  civilized  men  by  men 
like  wild  beasts  as  a  permissible  mode  of  settling  in- 
ternational disputes,  altho  in  Rousseau's  words, 
"War  is  the  foulest  fiend  ever  vomited  forth  from  the 
mouth  of  Hell."  As  such,  it  has  received  from  the 
earliest  times,  in  each  successive  age  till  now,  the 
fiercest  denunciations  of  the  holiest,  wisest  and  best 
of  men. 

Homer,  about  eight  hundred  and  fifty  years  before 
Christ,  tells  us  it  is  by  no  means  fit  for  a  man  stained 
with  blood  and  gore  to  pray  to  the  gods,  and  that 
"Religious,  social  and  domestic  ties  alike  he  violates, 
who  willingly  would  court  the  honors  of  internal 
strife."     {Iliad,  IX.,  63.) 

He  makes  Zeus,  the  cloud-gatherer,  look  sternly  at 
Ares,  the  God  of  War,  saying :  "Nay,  thou  renegade, 
sit  not  by  me  and  whine.  Most  hateful  art  thou  to 
me  of  all  the  Gods  that  dwell  in  Olympus ;  thou  ever 
lovest  strife,  and  wars  and  battles."  (Iliad,  F.,  line 
891.) 

Euripides,  480-406  b.c,  cries,  "Hapless  mortals, 
why  do  ye  get  your  spears  and  deal  out  death  to 
fellow-men .?  Stay !  from  such  work  forbear !".... 
"O  fools,  all  ye  who  try  to  win  the  meed  of  valor 
through  war,  seeking  thus  to  still  this  mortal  coil, 


for  if  bloody  contests  are  to  decide,  strife  will  never 
cease !" 

Thucydides,  who  wrote  his  great  work  sometime 
between  423  B.C.  and  403  B.C.,  asserts  that  "Wars 
spring  from  unseen  and  generally  insignificant 
causes,  the  first  outbreak  being  often  but  an  explo- 
sion of  anger."  And  he  gives  us  the  needed  lesson 
for  our  day  which  should  be  accepted  as  an  axiom: 
"It  is  wicked  to  proceed  against  him  as  a  wrong- 
doer who  is  ready  to  refer  the  question  to  arbitra- 
tion." Aristides  praised  Pericles,  because,  to  avoid 
war,  "he  is  willing  to  accept  arbitration." 

Andocides,  about  440-388  b.c,  says:  "This  then 
is  the  distinction,  Athenians,  which  I  draw  between 
the  two:  peace  means  security  for  the  people,  war 
inevitable  downfall." 

Isocrates,  436-338  b.c,  teaches  that  "Peace  should 
be  made  with  all  mankind.  It  should  be  our  care  not 
only  to  make  peace,  but  to  maintain  it.  But  this  will 
never  be  until  we  are  persuaded  that  quiet  is  better 
than  disturbance,  justice  than  injustice,  the  care  of 
our  own  than  grasping  at  what  belongs  to  others." 
(Oration  on  Peace.) 

The  sacred  books  of  the  East  make  peace  their 
chief  concern.  "Thus  does  he  (Buddha)  live  as  a 
binder  together  of  those  who  are  divided,  an  encour- 
ager  of  those  who  are  friends,  a  peacemaker,  a  lover 
of  peace,  impassioned  for  peace,  a  speaker  of  words 
that  make  for  peace."  (Buddhist  Suttas,  5th  Cen- 
tury B.C.)  "Now,  wherein  is  his  conduct  good.^* 
Herein,  that  putting  away  the  murder  of  that  which 
lives,  he  abstains  from  destroying  life.  The  cudgel 
and  the  sword  he  lays  aside,  and,  full  of  modesty  and 

5 


pity,  he  is  compassionate  and  kind  to  all  creatures 
that  have  life."     {Buddhist  Suit  as.) 

"Truly  is  the  king  our  sovereign  Lord!  He  has 
regulated  the  position  of  the  princes ;  he  has  called 
in  shields  and  spears ;  he  has  returned  to  their  cases 
bows  and  arrows."  (The  Shik  King,  Decade  /.,  Ode 
10.) 

Many  hundred  years  before  Christ,  the  Zendavesta 
pronounces  "Opposition  to  peace  is  a  sin." 

The  Buddhist  commandment,  six  hundred  years 
before  our  era,  is,  "Love  all  mankind  equally." 

"To  those  of  a  noble  disposition,  the  whole  world 
is  but  one  family,"  says  the  Hindu. 

Coming  to  the  Romans,  Cicero  (106-43  b.c.)  says: 
"War  should  only  be  undertaken  by  a  highly  civilized 
state  to  preserve  either  its  religion  or  its  existence." 
"There  are  two  ways  of  ending  a  dispute — discussion 
and  force:  the  latter  manner  is  simply  that  of  the 
brute  beasts;  the  former  is  proper  to  beings  gifted 
with  reason."  He  also  reminds  the  Senate,  "For  in 
this  assembly,  before  the  matter  was  decided,  I  said 
many  things  in  favor  of  peace,  and  even  while  war  was 
going  on  I  retained  the  same  opinions,  even  at  the 
risk  of  my  own  life."  No  better  proof  of  the  true 
patriot  and  leader  can  be  given  than  this — a  lesson 
much  needed  in  our  day. 

Sallust  (86-34  b.c.)  recounts,  "But  after  the  Sen- 
ate learned  of  the  war  between  them,  three  young 
men  were  chosen  to  go  out  to  Africa  to  both  Kings, 
and  in  the  words  of  the  Senate,  and  of  the  people, 
announce  to  them  that  it  was  their  will  and  advice 
that  they  lay  down  their  arms  and  'settle  their  dis- 
putes by  arbitration  rather  than  by  the  sword ;  since 


to  act  thus  would  be  to  the  honor  both  of  the  Romans 
and  themselves.'  "     {Jugurtha,  XXI. ,  Jf.) 

Virgil  (70-19  b.c.)  laments  that  "The  love  of  arms 
and  the  mad  wickedness  of  war  are  raging."  .... 
"As  for  me,  just  come  from  war  and  reeking  with 
fresh  slaughter,  it  would  be  criminal  for  me  to  touch 
the  gods  till  I  shall  have  washed  the  pollution  in  the 
running  stream." 

From  Seneca  (4  b.c. -65  a.d.)  we  have  this  out- 
burst: "We  punish  murders  and  massacres  among 
private  persons;  what  do  we  respecting  wars,  and 
the  glorious  crime  of  murdering  whole  nations?" 
....  "The  love  of  conquest  is  a  murderess.  Con- 
querors are  scourges  not  less  harmful  to  humanity 
than  floods  and  earthquakes." 

Tacitus  shrewdly  observes,  "To  be  sure  every 
wicked  man  has  the  greatest  power  in  stirring  up 
tumult  and  discord;  peace  and  quiet  need  the  quali- 
ties of  good  men."  {Historice,  IV.,  1.)  This  is  why 
the  demagog  comes  to  the  surface,  to  inflame  the 
passions  of  the  multitude,  that  he  may  ride  to  power 
upon  them.  Beware  of  the  man  who  leads  you  into 
war. 

Josephus,  bom  only  thirty-eight  years  after 
Christ,  writes:  "David  said,  'I  was  wilhng  to  build 
God  a  temple  myself,  but  he  prohibited  me,  because 
I  was  polluted  with  blood  and  wars.'  " 

Plutarch,  bom  46  a.d.,  holds  that  "There  is  no  war 
among  men  not  born  of  wickedness ;  some  are  aroused 
by  desire  of  pleasures,  others  by  too  great  eagerness 
for  influence  and  power." 

Such  are  a  few  examples  from  the  testimony  of  the 
ancients. 


I  now  solicit  your  attention  to  the  views  held  and 
expressed  by  the  early  Christian  Fathers,  which  can- 
not but  be  of  special  importance  to  such  of  you  as 
are  Theological  students. 

Justin  Martyr,  who  died  about  165  a.d.,  proclaims, 
"That  the  prophecy  is  fulfilled  we  have  good  reason 
to  believe,  for  we  (Christians),  who  in  the  past  killed 
one  another,  do  not  now  fight  our  enemies." 

St.  Irenaeus,  about  140-202  a.d.,  boasts  that  "The 
Christians  have  changed  their  swords  and  their  lances 
into  instruments  of  peace,  and  they  know  not  how  to 
fight." 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  whose  works  were  composed 
in  the  end  of  the  second  century  and  beginning  of 
the  third,  writes,  "The  followers  of  Christ  use  none 
of  the  implements  of  war." 

TertuUian,  about  150-230  a.d.,  asks,  "How  shall  a 
Christian  go  to  war,  how  shall  he  carry  arms  in  time 
of  peace,  when  the  Lord  has  forbidden  the  sword  to 
us.?  ...  .  Jesus  Christ,  in  disarming  St.  Peter,  dis- 
armed all  soldiers."  {De  Idololatr.,  19.)  "The  mili- 
tary oath  and  the  baptismal  vow  are  inconsistent 
with  each  other,  the  one  being  the  sign  of  Christ,  the 
other  of  the  Devil."  ....  "Shall  it  be  held  lawful 
to  make  an  occupation  of  the  sword,  when  the  Lord 
proclaims  that  he  who  uses  the  sword  shall  perish  by 
the  sword?" 

Origen,  185-254  a.d.,  says,  "The  angels  wonder 
that  peace  is  come  through  Jesus  to  earth,  for  it  is 
a  place  ridden  with  wars."  "This  is  called  peace, 
where  none  is  at  variance,  nothing  is  out  of  harmony, 
where  there  is  nothing  hostile,  nothing  barbarian." 
"For  no  longer  do  we  (Christians)  take  arms  against 

8 


any  race,  or  learn  to  wage  war,  inasmuch  as  we  have 
been  made  sons  of  peace  through  Jesus,  whom  we 
follow  as  our  leader."  (Patrologia  Grceca,  XIV., 
pages  46,  988, 1^31.) 

St.  Cyprian,  about  200-257  a.d.,  boasts  that 
"Christians  do  not  in  turn  assail  their  assailants, 
since  it  is  not  lawful  for  the  innocent  even  to  kill  the 
guilty;  but  they  readily  deHver  up  their  lives  and 
blood."     {Epistle  56,  to  Cornelius,  section  2.) 

Amobius,  who  wrote  about  295  a.d.,  says,  "Cer- 
tainly, if  all  who  look  upon  themselves  as  men  would 
listen  awhile  unto  Chri&t's  wholesome  and  peaceable 
decrees,  the  whole  world  long  ago,  turning  the  use 
of  iron  to  milder  works,  should  have  lived  in  most 
quiet  tranquillity,  and  have  met  together  in  a  firm 
and  indissoluble  league  of  most  safe  concord." 
(Adversus  Gentes,  Lib.  I.,  page  6.) 

Lactantius,  who  wrote  in  the  beginning  of  the 
Fourth  Century,  insists  that  "It  can  never  be  lawful 
for  a  righteous  man  to  go  to  war,  for  his  warfare  is 
unrighteous  itself.  It  is  not  murder  that  God  re- 
bukes ;  the  civil  laws  punish  that.  God's  prohibition 
is  intended  for  those  acts  which  men  considered  law- 
ful. Therefore  it  is  not  permitted  for  a  Christian  to 
bear  arms ;  justice  is  his  armor.  The  divine  command 
admits  no  exceptions ;  man  is  sacred  and  it  is  always 
a  crime  to  take  his  life."  {Div.  Inst.,  VI.,  20.)  Thus 
does  he  declaim  against  men-slayers.  "This,  then,  is 
your  road  to  immortality.  To  destroy  cities,  devas- 
tate territories,  exterminate  or  enslave  free  peoples! 
The  more  you  have  ruined,  robbed,  and  murdered 
men,  the  more  you  think  yourselves  noble  and  illus- 
trious."    {Div.  Inst.,  I.,  48.) 

9 


Athanasius,  296-373  a.d.,  states  that  when  people 
"hear  the  teaching  of  Christ,  straightway  instead  of 
fighting  they  turn  to  husbandry,  and  instead  of  arm- 
ing their  hands  with  weapons  they  raise  them  in 
prayer."     {Incarnation  of  the  Word,  section  52.) 

St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  335-395  a.d.,  preaches  that 
"He  who  promises  you  profit,  if  you  abstain  from  the 
ills  of  war,  bestows  on  you  two  gifts — one  the  re- 
mission from  the  train  of  evils  attendant  on  the  strife, 
the  other  the  strife  itself."  (Patrologia  Groeca, 
XLIV.,  page  1282.) 

St.  Augustine,  354-430  a.d.,  declares  that  "Not 
to  keep  peace  is  to  spurn  Christ."  (Migne's  Patro- 
logia  Latina,  XXXIII.,  page  186.)  He  holds  that 
"defensive  wars  are  the  only  just  and  lawful  ones; 
it  is  in  these  alone  that  the  soldier  may  be  allowed  to 
kill,  when  he  cannot  otherwise  protect  his  city  and 
his  brethren."    {Letter  Jf7.) 

Isidore  of  Pelusium,  370-450  a.d.,  is  no  less  out- 
spoken. "I  say,  although  the  slaughter  of  enemies 
in  war  may  seem  legitimate,  although  the  columns 
to  the  victors  are  erected,  telling  of  their  illustrious 
crimes,  yet  if  account  be  taken  of  the  undeniable  and 
supreme  brotherhood  of  man,  not  even  these  are  free 
from  evil."  {Patrologia  Grceca,  LXXVIII.,  page 
1287.) 

We  have  also  the  undisputed  historical  record  of 
Maximilian,  the  Centurion,  who,  having  embraced 
Christianity,  resigned  his  position  and  refused  to 
fight.    For  this  he  was  put  to  death. 

Celsus,  the  great  opponent  of  Christianity,  who 
wrote  about  176  a.d.,  reproaches  the  Christians  for 
refusing  to  bear  arms,  and  states  that  in  one  part 

10 


of  the  Roman  army,  including  one-third  of  the  whole, 
"Not  a  Christian  could  be  found." 

Martin  replied  to  Julian  the  Apostate,  "I  am  a 
Christian,  and  I  cannot  fight." 

If  we  turn  to  the  Popes,  who  were  then  supreme — 

St.  Gregory  the  Great,  540-604  a.d.,  writes  the 
King  of  the  Lombards,  "By  choosing  peace  you  have 
shown  yourself  a  lover  of  God  who  is  its  author." 

Pope  Innocent  III.,  to  the  King  of  France,  in  pro- 
test against  the  wars  between  Philip  Augustus  and 
Richard  of  England,  writes:  "At  the  moment  when 
Jesus  Christ  is  about  to  complete  the  mystery  of 
redemption,  he  gives  peace  as  a  heritage  to  his  dis- 
ciples ;  he  wills  that  they  observe  it  among  themselves 
and  make  it  observed  by  others.  What  he  says  at 
his  death,  he  confirms  after  his  resurrection.  'Peace 
be  with  you.'  These  are  the  first  words  which  he  ad- 
dressed to  his  Apostles.  Peace  is  the  expression  of 
that  love  which  is  the  fulfilling  of  the  law.  What  is 
more  contrary  to  love  than  the  quarrels  of  men.'' 
Born  of  hate,  they  destroy  every  bond  of  affection; 
and  shall  he  who  loves  not  his  neighbour  love  God.?" 

Erasmus  declares,  "If  there  is  in  the  affairs  of 
mortal  men  any  one  thing  which  it  is  proper  to  ex- 
plode, and  incumbent  upon  every  man  by  every  law- 
ful means  to  avoid,  to  deprecate,  to  oppose,  that  one 
thing  is  doubtless  war." 

Luther  declares,  "Cannons  and  firearms  are  cruel 
and  damnable  machines.  I  believe  them  to  have  been 
the  direct  suggestion  of  the  Devil.  If  Adam  had  seen 
in  vision  the  horrible  instruments  his  children  were 
to  invent,  he  would  have  died  of  grief." 

Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  that  the  leaders  of 

11 


Christianity  immediately  succeeding  Christ,  from 
whom  authentic  expressions  of  doctrines  have  come 
down  to  us,  were  well  assured  that  their  Master  had 
forbidden  to  the  Christian  the  killing  of  men  in  war 
or  enlisting  in  the  legions.  One  of  the  chief  differ- 
ences which  separated  Roman  non-Christians  and 
Christians  was  the  refusal  of  the  latter  to  enlist  in 
the  legions  and  be  thus  bound  to  kill  their  fellows  in 
war  as  directed.  We  may  well  ponder  over  the 
change,  and  wonder  that  Christian  priests  accom- 
pany the  armies  of  our  day,  and  even  dare  to  ap- 
proach the  Unknown,  beseeching  his  protection  and 
favor  for  soldiers  in  their  heinous  work.  When  the 
warring  hosts  are  Christian  nations,  worshipping  the 
one  God,  which,  alas,  is  not  seldom,  as  in  the  last 
gigantic  orgy  of  human  slaughter  in  Europe,  we  had 
the  spectacle  of  the  rival  priests,  praying  in  the  name 
of  the  Prince  of  Peace,  to  the  God  of  Battles  for 
favor.  Similar  prayers  were  offered  in  the  churches, 
where  in  some  instances  battleflags,  the  emblems  of 
carnage,  were  displayed.  Future  ages  are  to  pro- 
nounce all  this  blasphemous.  There  are  those  of 
to-day  who  deplore  it  deeply.  Even  the  Pagan, 
before  Christ,  direct  from  human  butchery,  refrained 
from  appealing  to  his  gods  without  first  cleansing 
himself  of  the  accruing  pollution. 

It  is  a  truism  that  the  doctrines  of  all  founders  of 
religions  have  undergone  modifications  in  practice, 
but  it  is  strange  indeed  that  the  doctrine  of  Christ 
regarding  war  and  warriors,  as  held  by  his  imme- 
diate followers,  should  have  been  so  completely  dis- 
carded and  reversed  in  the  later  centuries,  and  is  so 
still. 

12 


Bentham's  words  cannot  be  overlooked.  "Nothing 
can  be  worse  than  the  general  feeHng  on  the  subject 
of  war.  The  Church,  the  State,  the  ruling  few,  the 
subject  man,  all  seem  in  this  case  to  have  combined 
to  patronize  vice  and  crime  in  their  widest  sphere  of 
evil.  Dress  a  man  in  particular  garments,  call  him 
by  a  particular  name,  and  he  shall  have  authority, 
on  divers  occasions,  to  commit  every  species  of  of- 
fense— to  pillage,  to  murder,  to  destroy  human  fe- 
licity; and  for  so  doing  he  shall  be  rewarded.  The 
period  will  surely  arrive  when  better  instructed  gen- 
erations will  require  all  the  evidence  of  history  to 
credit  that,  in  times  deeming  themselves  enlightened, 
human  beings  should  have  been  honored  with  public 
approval  in  the  very  proportion  of  the  misery  they 
caused." 

Bacon's  words  come  to  mind.  "I  am  of  opinion 
that,  except  you  bray  Christianity  in  a  mortar  and 
mould  it  into  new  paste,  there  is  no  possibility  of  a 
holy  war." 

Apparently  in  no  field  of  its  work  in  our  times 
does  the  Christian  Church  thruout  the  whole  world, 
with  outstanding  individual  exceptions  of  course,  so 
conspicuously  fail  as  in  its  attitude  to  war, — ^judged 
by  the  standard  maintained  by  the  early  Christian 
Fathers  nearest  in  time  to  Christ.  Its  silence  when 
outspoken  speech  might  avert  war,  its  silence  during 
war's  sway,  its  failure  even  during  calm  days  of 
peace  to  proclaim  the  true  Christian  doctrine  re- 
garding the  killing  of  men  made  in  God's  image,  and 
the  prostitution  of  its  holy  offices  to  unholy  warlike 
ends,  give  point  to  the  recent  arraignment  of  Prime 
Minister  Balfour,  who  declared  that  the  Church  to- 

13 


day  busies  itself  with  questions  which  do  not  weigh 
even  as  dust  in  the  balance  compared  with  the  vital 
problems  with  which  it  is  called  upon  to  deal. 

Volumes  could  be  filled  with  the  denunciations  of 
war  by  the  great  moderns.     Only  a  few  can  be  given. 

Lord  Clarendon,  1608-1674,  says,  "We  cannot 
make  a  more  lively  representation  and  emblem  to  our- 
selves of  hell,  than  by  the  view  of  a  kingdom  in  war." 

Hume  says,  "The  rage  and  violence  of  public  war, 
what  is  it  but  a  suspension  of  justice  among  the  war- 
ring parties?" 

Gibbon  writes,  "A  single  robber  or  a  few  associates 
are  branded  with  their  genuine  name;  but  the  ex- 
ploits of  a  numerous  band  assume  the  character  of 
lawful  and  honorable  war." 

"In  every  battlefield  we  see  an  inglorious  arena  of 
human  degradation,"  says  Conway. 

A  strong  voice  from  a  St.  Andrews  principal  is 
heard.  Sir  David  Brewster,  1781-1868,  says,  "Noth- 
ing in  the  history  of  the  species  appears  more  in- 
explicable than  that  war,  the  child  of  barbarism, 
should  exist  in  an  age  enlightened  and  civilized.  But 
it  is  more  inexplicable  still  that  war  should  exist 
where  Christianity  has  for  nearly  2000  years  been 
shedding  its  gentle  Hght,  and  should  be  defended  by 
arguments  drawn  from  the  Scriptures  themselves." 

One  of  the  greatest  American  Secretaries  of  State, 
Colonel  John  Hay,  who  has  just  passed  away,  de- 
nounced war  as  "the  most  futile  and  ferocious  of 
human  follies." 

Much  has  man  accomplished  in  his  upward  march 
from  savagery.  Much  that  was  evil  and  disgraceful 
has  been  banished  from  life;  but  the  indelible  mark 

14 


of  war  still  remains  to  stain  the  earth  and  discredit 
our  claim  to  civilization.  After  all  our  progress, 
human  slaughter  is  still  with  us;  but  I  ask  your  at- 
tention for  a  few  minutes  to  many  bright  rays,  pierc- 
ing the  dark  cloud,  which  encourage  us.  Consider 
for  a  moment  what  war  was  in  days  past.  It  knew 
no  laws,  had  no  restrictions.  Poison  and  assassina- 
tion of  opposing  rulers  and  generals  arranged  by 
private  bargain,  and  deceptive  agreements,  were 
legitimate  weapons.  Prisoners  were  massacred  or 
enslaved.  No  quarter  was  given.  Enemies  were  tor- 
tured and  mutilated.  Women,  children,  and  non- 
combatants  were  not  spared.  Wells  were  poisoned. 
Private  property  was  not  respected.  Pillage  was  the 
rule.  Privateering  and  private  war  were  allowed. 
Neutral  rights  at  sea  were  almost  unknown. 

Permit  me  briefly  to  trace  the  history  of  the  re- 
forms in  war  which  have  been  achieved,  from  which 
we  draw  encouragement  to  labor  for  its  abolition, 
strong  in  the  faith  that  the  days  of  man-slaying  are 
numbered. 

The  first  action  against  the  savage  custom  of  war 
is  found  in  the  rules  of  the  Amphictyonic  Council  of 
the  Greeks,  some  three  hundred  years  before  Christ. 
Hellenes  were  "to  quarrel  as  those  who  intend  some 
day  to  be  reconciled."  They  were  to  "use  friendly 
correction,  and  not  to  devastate  Hellas  or  burn 
houses,  or  think  that  the  whole  population  of  a  city, 
men,  women  and  children,  were  equally  their  enemies 
and  therefore  to  be  destroyed." 

We  owe  chiefly  to  Grotius  the  modem  movement 
to  subject  hitherto  lawless  war  on  land  and  sea  to 
the  humane  restraints  of  law.    His  first  book,  "Mare 

15 


Liberum,"  appeared  in  1609.  It  soon  attracted  such 
attention  that  Britain  had  to  employ  her  greatest 
legal  authority,  Lord  Selden,  to  make  reply.  Up  to 
this  time  Spain,  Portugal  and  Britain  had  main- 
tained that  the  surrounding  seas  were  closed  to  all 
countries  except  those  upon  their  shores,  a  doctrine 
not  formally  abandoned  by  Britain  until  1803. 

Grotius's  second  and  epoch-making  work,  "The 
Rights  of  War  and  Peace,"  appeared  in  1625,  and 
immediately  arrested  the  attention  of  Gustavus 
Adolphus,  the  greatest  warrior  of  his  time.  A  copy 
was  found  in  his  tent  when  he  died  on  the  field  of 
Lutzen.  He  stood  constantly  for  mercy,  even  in 
those  barbarous  days.  Three  years  after  its  appear- 
ance, Cardinal  Richelieu,  to  the  amazement  of 
Europe,  spared  the  Huguenot  garrison,  and  pro- 
tected the  city  of  Rochelle,  when  he  was  expected  to 
follow  the  usual  practice  of  massacring  the  defend- 
ers and  giving  the  town  and  inhabitants  over  to  mas- 
sacre and  pillage.  It  was  then  holy  work  to  slay 
heretics,  sparing  not  one.  He  was  denounced  for 
this  merciful  act  by  his  own  party  and  hailed  as 
"Cardinal  of  Satan"  and  "Pope  of  the  Atheists." 
The  treaty  of  Westphalia  in  1648,  three  years  after 
the  death  of  Grotius,  closed  the  Thirty  Years  War 
in  Germany,  the  Eighty  Years  War  in  the  Nether- 
lands, and  a  long  era  of  savagery  in  many  parts  of 
the  globe.  It  shows  clearly  the  influence  of  Grotius's 
advanced  ideas,  being  founded  upon  his  doctrine  of 
the  essential  independence  and  equality  of  all  Sover- 
eign States,  and  the  laws  of  justice  and  mercy.  In 
the  progress  of  man  from  war,  lawless  and  savage, 
to  war  restricted  and  obedient  to  International  Law, 

16 


no  name  is  entitled  to  rank  with  his.  He  is  the  father 
of  modern  International  Law,  so  far  as  it  deals  with 
the  rights  of  Peace  and  War.  He  has  had  several 
eminent  successors,  especially  PufFendorf,  Bynker- 
shoek  and  Vattel.  These  four  are  called  by  Philli- 
more  "The  Umpires  of  International  Disputes." 
They  are  followed  closely  by  a  second  quartette,  the 
British  Judge — Stowell,  and  the  American  Judges — 
Marshall,  Story  and  Field. 

International  Law  is  unique  in  one  respect.  It  has 
no  material  force  behind  it.  It  is  a  proof  of  the 
supreme  force  of  gentleness — ^the  irresistible  pressure 
and  final  triumph  of  what  is  just  and  merciful.  To 
the  few  who  have  contributed  conspicuously  to  its 
growth  in  the  past,  and  to  those  laboring  therein 
to-day,  civilization  owes  an  unpayable  debt.  Private 
individuals  have  created  it,  and  yet  the  nations  have 
been  glad  to  accept.  British  Judges  have  repeatedly 
declared  that  "International  Law  is  in  full  force  in 
Britain."  It  is  so  in  America  and  other  countries. 
We  have  in  this  self-created,  self-developing  and  self- 
forcing  agency  one  of  the  two  most  powerful  and 
beneficent  instruments  for  the  peace  and  progress 
of  the  world. 

The  most  important  recent  reforms  effected  in  the 
laws  of  war  are  those  of  the  Treaty  of  Paris  (1856), 
the  Treaty  of  Washington  (1871),  which  settled  the 
Alabama  Claims,  and  the  Brussels  Declaration  of 
1874. 

The  Treaty  of  Paris  marks  an  era  as  having  en- 
shrined certain  principles.  First,  it  abolished  pri- 
vateering. Henceforth,  war  on  the  sea  is  confined 
to  national  warships,  organized  and  manned  by  offi- 

17 


cers  and  men  in  the  service  of  the  State.  Commerce 
is  no  longer  subject  to  attack  by  private  adventurers 
seeking  spoil.  Second,  it  ruled  that  a  blockade  to 
be  recognized  must  be  effective.  Third,  it  established 
the  doctrine  that  an  enemy's  goods  in  a  neutral  ship 
are  free,  except  contraband.  These  were  great  steps 
forward. 

America  declined  to  accept  the  first  (in  which, 
however,  she  has  now  concurred)  unless  private  prop- 
erty was  totally  exempt  on  sea  as  on  land,  for  which 
she  has  long  contended,  and  which  the  powers,  except 
Britain,  have  generally  favored.  So  strongly  has 
the  current  set  recently  in  its  favor  that  hopes  are 
entertained  that  the  forthcoming  Conference  at  the 
Hague  may  reach  this  desirable  result.  It  is  the 
final  important  advance  in  this  direction  that  re- 
mains to  be  made,  and  means  that  peaceful  commerce 
has  been  rescued  from  the  demon  War.  Should  it 
be  made,  the  trenchers  of  St.  Andrews  students  may 
well  whirl  in  the  air  with  cheers. 

The  Treaty  of  Washington  is  probably  to  rank  in 
history  as  Mr.  Gladstone's  greatest  service,  because 
it  settled  by  arbitration  the  Alabama  Claims,  a  ques- 
tion fraught  with  danger,  and  which,  if  left  open, 
would  probably  have  driven  apart  and  kept  hostile 
to  each  other  for  a  long  period  the  two  branches  of 
the  EngHsh-speaking  race.  A  statesman  less  power- 
ful with  the  great  masses  of  his  countrymen  could  not 
have  carried  the  healing  measure,  for  much  had  to 
be  conceded  by  Britain,  for  which  it  deserves  infinite 
credit.  Three  propositions  were  insisted  upon  by 
America  as  a  basis  for  arbitration,  and  altho  all  were 
reasonable  and  should  have  been  part  of  Interna- 
ls 


tional  Law,  still  they  were  not.  Their  fairness  being 
recognized,  Mr.  Gladstone  boldly  and  magnani- 
mously agreed  that  the  arbiters  should  be  guided  by 
them.  These  defined  very  clearly  the  duties  of  neu- 
trals respecting  the  fitting  out  of  ships  of  war  in 
their  ports,  or  the  use  of  their  ports  as  a  naval  base. 
This  they  must  now  use  "due  diligence"  to  prevent. 

Morley  says,  in  his  Life  of  Gladstone:  "The 
Treaty  of  Washington  and  the  Geneva  arbitration 
stand  out  as  the  most  noble  victory  in  the  nineteenth 
century  of  the  noble  art  of  preventive  diplomacy,  and 
the  most  signal  exhibition  in  their  history  of  self- 
command  in  two  of  three  chief  democratic  powers  of 
the  Western  World." 

The  Brussels  Convention  met  in  1874. 

Even  as  late  as  the  earlier  half  of  last  century  the 
giving  up  of  towns  and  their  inhabitants  to  the  fury 
of  the  troops  which  stormed  them  was  permitted  by 
the  usages  of  war.  Defending  his  conduct  in  Spain, 
Wellington  says :  "I  believe  it  has  always  been  under- 
stood that  the  defenders  of  a  fortress  stormed  have 
no  right  to  quarter."  After  the  storming  of  San 
Sebastian,  as  to  plunder  he  says:  "It  has  fallen  to 
my  lot  to  take  many  towns  by  storm,  and  I  am  con- 
cerned to  add  that  I  never  saw  nor  heard  of  one  so 
taken  by  any  troops  that  it  was  not  plundered." 

Shakespeare's  description  of  the  stormed  city  can 

never  be  forgotten : 

The  gates  of  mercy  shall  be  all  shut  up, 
And  the  flushed  soldier  rough  and  hard 
In  liberty  of  bloody  hand  shall  range 
With  conscience  wide  as  hell. 

This  inhuman  practice  was  formally  abolished  by 
the   Brussels  Declaration — that  "a   town   taken  by 

19 


storm  shall  not  be  given  up  to  the  victorious  troops 
to  plunder."  To-day  to  put  a  garrison  to  the  sword 
would  be  a  breach  of  the  law  of  quarter,  as  well  as  a 
violation  of  the  Brussels  Declaration.  We  may  rest 
assured  the  civilized  world  has  seen  the  last  of  that 
atrocity. 

We  look  back  from  the  pinnacle  of  our  high  civili- 
zation with  surprise  and  horror  to  find  that  even  in 
Wellington's  time,  scarcely  one  hundred  years  ago, 
such  savagery  was  the  rule ;  but  so  shall  our  descend- 
ants after  a  like  interval  look  back  from  a  still  higher 
pinnacle  upon  our  slaying  of  man  in  war  as  equally 
atrocious,  equally  unnecessary,  and  equally  inde- 
fensible. 

Let  me  summarize  what  has  been  gained  so  far  in 
mitigating  the  atrocities  of  war  in  our  march  on- 
ward to  the  reign  of  peace.  Non-combatants  are 
now  spared,  women  and  children  are  no  longer  mas- 
sacred, quarter  is  given,  and  prisoners  are  well  cared 
for.  Towns  are  not  given  over  to  pillage,  private 
property  on  land  is  exempt,  or  if  taken  is  paid  or 
receipted  for.  Poisoned  wells,  assassination  of  rulers 
and  commanders  by  private  bargain,  and  deceptive 
agreements,  are  infamies  of  the  past.  On  the  sea, 
privateering  has  been  abolished,  neutral  rights 
greatly  extended  and  property  protected,  and  the 
right  of  search  narrowly  restricted.  So  much  is  to 
be  credited  to  the  pacific  power  of  International  Law. 
There  is  great  cause  for  congratulation.  If  man 
has  not  been  striking  at  the  heart  of  the  monster 
War,  he  has  at  least  been  busily  engaged  drawing 
some  of  its  poisonous  fangs. 

Thus  even  thruout  the  savage  reign  of  man-slaying 

20 


we  see  the  blessed  law  of  evolution  unceasingly  at 
work  performing  its  divine  mission,  making  that 
which  is  better  than  what  has  been  and  ever  leading 
us  on  towards  perfection. 

We  have  only  touched  the  fringe  of  the  crime  so 
far,  however,  the  essence  of  which  is  the  slaughter  of 
human  beings,  the  failure  to  hold  human  hfe  sacred, 
as  the  early  Christians  did. 

One  deplorable  exception  exists  to  the  march  of 
improvement.  A  new  stain  has  recently  crept  into 
the  rules  of  war  as  foul  as  any  that  war  has  been 
forced  by  public  sentiment  to  discard.  It  is  the 
growth  of  recent  years.  Gentilis,  Grotius,  and  all 
the  great  publicists  before  Bynkershoek,  dominated 
by  the  spirit  of  Roman  Law,  by  chivalry  and  long- 
established  practice,  insist  upon  the  necessity  of  a 
formal  declaration  of  war,  "that  he  be  not  taken  un- 
awares under  friendly  guise."  Not  until  the  begin- 
ning of  the  last  century  did  the  opposite  view  begin 
to  find  favor.  To-day  it  is  held  that  a  formal  declar- 
ation is  not  indispensable  and  that  war  may  begin 
without  it.  Here  is  the  only  step  backward  to  be  met 
with  in  the  steady  progress  of  reforming  the  rules  of 
war.  It  is  no  longer  held  to  be  contrary  to  these  for 
a  Power  to  surprise  and  destroy  while  yet  in  friendly 
conference  with  its  adversary,,  endeavoring  to  effect 
a  peaceful  settlement.  It  belongs  to  the  infernal 
armory  of  assassins  hired  to  kill  or  poison  opposing 
generals,  of  forged  dispatches,  poisoned  wells,  agree- 
ments made  to  be  broken,  and  all  the  diabolic  weapons 
which,  for  very  shame,  men  have  been  forced  to  aban- 
don as  too  infamous  even  for  the  trade  of  man-slay- 
ing.    It  proclaims  that  any  party  to  a  dispute  can 

21 


first  in  his  right  hand  carry  gentle  peace,  sitting  in 
friendly  conference,  ostensibly  engaged  in  finding  a 
peaceful  solution  of  differences,  while  with  the  left 
he  grasps,  concealed,  the  assassin's  dagger.  The 
parallel  between  duel  and  war  runs  very  close  through 
history.  The  challenger  to  a  duel  gave  the  other 
party  notice.  In  1187,  the  German  diet  at  Nurem- 
berg enacted,  "We  decree  and  enact  by  this  edict  that 
he  who  intends  to  damage  another  or  to  injure  him 
shall  give  him  notice  three  days  before."  It  is  to  be 
hoped  that  the  coming  Conference  will  stamp  this 
treachery  as  contrary  to  the  rules  of  war,  and  thus 
return  to  the  ancient  and  more  chivalrous  idea  of 
attack  only  after  notice. 

We  come  now  to  the  consideration  of  the  other 
commanding  force  in  the  campaign  against  war — 
Peaceful  Arbitration. 

The  originator  of  the  world-wide  arbitration  idea 
was  Emeric  Cruce,  born  at  Paris  about  1590.     Of 
I     his  small  book  of  226  pages  upon  the  subject  only 
/     one  copy  exists.     Gerloius  had  propounded  the  idea 
i      in  the  twelfth  century,  but  it  failed  to  attract  atten- 
tion.    Balch  says,  "Cruce  presented  what  was  prob- 
ably the  first  real  proposal  of  substituting  interna- 
tional arbitration  for  war  as  the  court  of  last  resort 
of  nations."     It  has  a  quaint  preface.     "This  book 
would  gladly  make  the  tour  of  the  inhabited  world 
so  as  to  be  seen  by  all  the  kings,  and  it  would  not  fear 
any  disgrace,  having  truth  for  its  escort  and  the 
merit  of  its  subject,  which  must  serve  as  letters  of 
recommendation  and  credit." 

Henry  IV.,  in  1603,  produced  his  scheme  for  con- 
solidating Europe  in  order  to  abolish  war;  but  as 

22 


its  fundamental  idea  was  armed  force  and  involved 
the  overthrow  of  the  Hapsburgs,  it  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  in  hne  with  the  system  of  peaceful  arbitra- 
tion. 

St.  Pierre,  the  Due  de  Lorraine,  William  Penn,  the 
Quaker  founder  of  Pennsylvania,  Bentham,  Kant, 
Mill  and  others  have  labored  to  substitute  the  reign 
of  law  for  war  by  producing  schemes  much  alike  in 
character,  so  that  we  have  many  proofs  of  the  irre- 
pressible longing  of  man  for  release  from  the  scourge. 

I  beg  now  to  direct  your  attention  to  the  most 
fruitful  of  all  conferences  that  have  ever  taken  place. 
Other  conferences  have  been  held,  but  always  at  the 
end  of  war,  and  their  first  duty  was  to  restore  peace 
between  the  belligerents.  The  Hague  Conference  was 
the  first  ever  called  to  discuss  the  means  of  estab- 
lishing peace  without  reference  to  any  particular  war. 
Twenty-six  nations  were  represented,  including  all 
the  leading  powers. 

The  Conference  was  called  by  the  present  Emperor 
of  Russia,  August  24,  1898,  and  is  destined  to  be  for 
ever  memorable  from  having  realized  Cruce's  ideal, 
and  given  to  the  world  its  first  permanent  court  for 
the  settlement  of  international  disputes.  The  last 
century  is  in  future  ages  to  remain  famous  as  having 
given  birth  to  this  High  Court  of  Humanity.  The 
conference  opened  upon  the  birthday  of  the  Emperor, 
May  18,  1899.  The  day  may  yet  become  one  of  the 
world's  holidays  in  the  coming  day  of  Peace,  as  that 
upon  which  humanity  took  one  of  its  longest  and 
highest  steps  in  its  history,  onward  and  upward.  As 
Ambassador  White  says,  "The  Conference  marks  the 
first  stage  in  the  abolition  of  the  scourge  of  war." 


Such  an  achievement  was  scarcely  expected,  even  by 
the  most  sanguine.  Its  accomphshment  surprised 
most  of  the  members  of  the  conference  themselves; 
but  so  deeply  and  generally  had  they  been  appalled 
by  the  ravages  of  war  and  its  enormous  cost,  by  its 
inevitable  progeny  of  future  wars,  and  above  all  by 
its  failure  to  ensure  lasting  peace,  that  the  idea  of 
a  world  court  captivated  the  assembly,  which  has  been 
pronounced  the  most  distinguished  that  ever  nTet. 
A  less  sweeping  proposal  would  probably  not  have 
touched  their  imagination  and  aroused  their  enthu- 
siasm. The  prompt  acceptance  of  the  International 
Court  by  public  sentiment  in  all  countries  was  no  less 
surprising.  Every  one  of  the  powers  represented 
promptly  ratified  the  Treaty,  the  United  States  Sen- 
ate voting  unanimously — a  rare  event.  We  may 
/  justly  accept  this  far-reaching  and  rapid  success  as 
I  evidence  of  a  deep,  general  and  earnest  desire  in  all 
\  lands  to  depose  war  and  enthrone  peace  thru  the 
i    judical  settlement  of  disputes  by  courts. 

At  last  there  is  no  excuse  for  war.  A  tribunal  is 
now  at  hand  to  judge  wisely  and  deliver  righteous 
judgment  between  nations.  It  has  made  an  auspi- 
cious start.  A  number  of  disputes  have  already  been 
settled  by  it.  First,  it  settled  a  difference  between 
the  United  States  and  Mexico.  Then  President 
Roosevelt,  when  asked  to  act  as  arbiter,  nobly  led 
Britain,  Germany,  France,  Italy,  America  and  Ven- 
ezuela to  it  for  settlement  of  their  differences,  which 
has  just  been  concluded. 

Britain  had  recently  a  narrow  escape  from  war 
with  Russia,  arising  from  the  unfortunate  incident 
upon   the   Dogger   Bank,   when   fishing   boats   were 

24 


struck  by  shots  from  Russian  warships.  There  was 
intense  excitement.  The  Hague  Treaty  provides 
that  when  such  difficulties  arise  International  Com- 
missions of  Inquiry  be  formed.  This  was  the  course 
pursued  by  two  Governments,  parties  to  the  Treaty, 
which  happily  preserved  the  peace. 

It  was  under  another  provision  of  the  Hague  Con- 
ference that  the  President  of  the  United  Stfites  ad- 
dressed his  recent  note  to  Japan  and  Russia  suggest- 
ing a  conference  looking  to  peace,  and  offering  his 
services  to  bring  it  about.  His  success  was  thus  made 
possible  by  the  Hague  Treaty.  The  world  is  fast 
awakening  to  its  far-reaching  consequences  and  to 
the  fact  that  the  greatest  advance  man  has  ever  made 
by  one  act  is  the  creation  of  a  World  Coupt  to  settle 
International  disputes. 

As  I  write,  report  comes  that  to-morrow  the  august 
tribunal  is  to  begin  hearing  France  and  Britain  upon 
their  differences  regarding  Muscat.  There  sits  the 
divinest  conclave  that  ever  graced  the  earth,  judged 
by  its  mission,  which  is  the  fulfilment  of  the  prophecy, 
"Men  shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and 
their  spears  into  pruning  hooks ;  nation  shall  not  lift 
up  sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war 
any  more." 

Thus  the  world  court  goes  marching  on,  to  the 
dethronement  of  savage  war  and  the  enthronement 
of  peaceful  arbitration. 

The  Hague  Tribunal  has  nothing  compulsory 
about  it ;  all  members  are  left  in  perfect  freedom  as 
to  whether  they  submit  questions  to  it  or  not.  This 
has  sometimes  been  regarded  as  its  weakness,  but  it 
is,  from  another  point  of  view,  its  strongest  feature. 

25 


Like  International  Law,  it  depends  upon  its  merits 
to  win  its  way,  and,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is  succeeding ; 
but  so  anxious  are  many  to  hasten  the  abolition  of 
war  that  suggestions   are  made  towards   obtaining 
the  consent  of  the  Powers  to  agree  to  submit  to  it 
certain  classes  of  questions.     In  this  it  may  be  well 
to  make  haste  slowly  and  refrain  from  exerting  pres- 
sure.    This  will  all  come  in  good  time.     Peace  wins 
her  way  not  by  force ;  her  appeal  is  to  the  reason  and 
the  conscience  of  man.     In  all  treaties  hitherto  the 
great  Powers  have  retained  power  to  withhold  sub- 
mission   of  questions  affecting  "their  honor  or  vital 
interests."     This  was  only  natural  at  first,  and  time 
is  required  gradually  to  widen  the  range  of  subjects 
to  be  submitted.     The  tendency  to  do  this  is  evident, 
and  it  only  needs  patience  to  reach  the  desired  end. 
The  greatest  step  forward  in  this  direction  is  that 
Denmark  and  the  Netherlands  and  Chili  and  Argen- 
tina have  just  concluded  treaties  agreeing  to  submit 
'  to    arbitration    all    disputes,   making    no    exception 
I  whatever.    To  crown  this  noble  work,  the  latter  two 
j  have  erected  a  statue  to  the  Prince  of  Peace  on  the 
I  highest  peak  of  the  Andes,  which  marks  the  long- 
'  disputed  boundary  between  them. 

Another  splendid  advance  in  this  direction  has 
been  made  in  the  agreement  to  arbitrate  all  questions 
between  Sweden  and  Norway.  Questions  affecting 
("independence,  integrity,  or  vital  interests"  are  ex- 
f  cepted;  but  should  any  difference  arise  as  to  what 
to  do,  that  question  is  to  be  submitted.  In  other 
words,  either  nation  can  claim  that  a  question  does 
so,  and,  if  the  Hague  Tribunal  agrees,  it  is  not  arbi- 
trated.    But  if  the  Tribunal  decides  the  difference 

26 


does  not  concern  the  "independence,  integrity,  or 
vital  interest  of  either  country,"  then  it  is  submitted 
to  arbitration.  This  is  certainly  a  step  forward; 
and  you  will  please  note  that  intangible  thing — 
"honor" — ^is  omitted. 

These  nations  are  to  be  cordially  congratulated  on 
taking  the  initial  step  in  this  splendid  advance.  We 
grudge  not  the  honor  and  glory  that  has  fallen  to 
them  therefrom,  tho  in  our  hearts  we  may  feel  that 
this  might  more  appropriately  have  been  the  work 
of  the  race  that  aboHshed  slavery,  both  branches  par- 
ticipating, and  also  abolished  the  duel.  What  our 
race  should  now  do  is  to  follow  the  example  set  and 
conclude  such  a  treaty,  operative  within  the  wide 
boundaries  of  English-speakers,  Empire  and  Repub- 
lic. Less  than  this  were  derogatory  to  our  past  as 
pioneers  of  progress.  We  cannot  long  permit  these 
small  nations  to  march  in  advance.  We  should  at 
least  get  abreast  of  them. 

We  have  noted  that  honor  or  vital  interests  have 
hitherto  been  excepted  from  submission  by  arbitra- 
tion treaties.  We  exclaim,  "O  Liberty,  what  crimes 
are  committed  in  thy  name !" — but  these  are  trifling 
compared  with  those  committed  in  the  name  of 
"Honor,"  the  most  dishonored  word  in  our  language. 
Never  did  man  or  nation  ever  dishonor  another  man 
or  nation.  This  is  impossible.  All  honor's  wounds 
are  self-inflicted.  All  stains  upon  honor  come  from 
within,  never  from  without.  Innocence  seeks  no  re- 
venge ;  there  is  nothing  to  be  revenged, — guilt  can 
never  be.  Man  or  nation  whose  honor  needs  vindi- 
cation beyond  a  statement  of  the  truth,  which  puts 
calumny  to  shame,  is  to  be  pitied.     Innocence  rests 

27 


with  that,  truth  has  a  quiet  breast,  for  the  guiltless 
find  that 

So  dear  to  heaven  is  saintly  innocence, 
A  thousand  liveried  angels  lackey  her 
To  keep  her  from  all  sense  of  sin  and  shame. 

Innocent  honor,  assailed,  discards  bloody  revenge 
i   and  seeks  the  Halls  of  Justice  and  of  Arbitration. 
It  has  been  held  in  the  past  that,  a  man's  honor  as- 
sailed, vindication  lay  only  thru  the  sword.     To-day 
it  is  sometimes  still  held  that  a  nation's  honor,  as- 
sailed, can  in  like  manner  be  vindicated  only  thru 
war;  but  it  is  not  open  to  a  member  of  our  race  to 
hold  this  doctrine,  for  within  its  wide  boundaries  no 
dispute  between  men  can  be  lawfully  adjusted  out- 
side the  courts  of  law.     Instead  of  vindicating  his 
honor,  the  English-speaking  man  who  violated  the 
law  by  seeking  redress  by  personal  violence  would 
dishonor  himself.     Under  our  law,  no  wrong  against 
man  can  be  committed  that  justifies  the   crime  of 
private  vengeance  after  its  commission. 
/     The  man  of  our  race  who  holds  that  his  country 
/  would   be   dishonored   by   agreeing   to   unrestricted 
i   arbitration  forgets  that  according  to  this  standard 
\   he  is  personally  dishonored  by  doing  that  very  thing. 
\  Individually  he  has  become  civiHzed,  nationally  he 
I  remains  barbaric,  refusing  peaceful  settlement   and 
J  insisting    upon    national    revenge — all    for    injured 
■  honor. 

Which  of  us  would  not  rejoice  to  have  Britain  and 
America  share  with  Denmark  and  Holland,  Chili  and 
Argentina,  the  "dishonor"  they  have  recently  in- 
curred, and  esteem  it  a  proud  possession? 

Nations   are   only   aggregates   of  the  individual. 

28 


The  parallel  between  war  and  the  duel  is  complete; 
and  as  society  within  our  race  already  relies  upon 
Courts  of  Justice  to  protect  its  members  from  all 
wrongs,  so  shall  the  nations  finally  rely  upon  Inter- 
national Courts. 

Objection  has  been  made  that  unreasonable,  dis- 
honoring or  baseless  claims  might  be  made  under 
arbitration.  That  any  member  of  the  family  of  na- 
tions would  present  a  claim  wholly  without  basis,  or 
that  the  Court  would  not  decide  against  it  if  made, 
is  a  danger  purely  hypothetical.  The  agreement 
between  nations  when  made  will  undoubtedly  be 
framed  in  accordance  with  the  ideas  of  Grotius,  and 
the  independence  and  equality  of  all  members  and 
their  existing  territories  recognized.  These  could 
not  be  assailed. 

Three  incidents  have  occurred  since  the  Court  was 
organized  which  have  caused  much  pain  to  the  friends 
of  peace  throughout  the  world. 

America  refused  the  offer  of  the  FiKpinos  to  ad- 
just their  quarrel  by  arbitration.  Britain  refused 
the  offer  of  the  Transvaal  Repubhc  to  arbitrate, 
altho  three  of  the  Court  proposed  by  the  Republic 
were  to  be  British  Judges,  and  the  other  two  Judges 
of  Holland — the  most  remarkable  offer  ever  made, 
highly  creditable  to  the  maker  and  a  great  tribute 
to  British  Judges.  Neither  Russia  nor  Japan  sug- 
gested submission  to  the  Hague.  Since  the  Hague 
Court  is  the  result  of  the  Russian  Emperor's  initia- 
tive, this  caused  equal  surprise  and  pain.  The  expla- 
nation has  been  suggested  that  peaceful  conferences 
were  being  held  when  Japan  attacked  at  Port  Arthur 
without  notice,  rendering  arbitration  impossible. 

29 


W-e  must  recognize  these  discouraging  incidents, 
but  we  have  the  consolation  left  us  of  believing  that, 
had  either  of  the  three  nations  seen,  at  the  beginning, 
the  consequences  of  ignoring  arbitration,  as  clearly 
as  they  did  later,  they  would  have  accepted  arbitra- 
tion and  had  reason  to  congratulate  themselves  upon 
the  award  of  the  Court,  whatever  it  was.  They  will 
learn  by  experience.  Notwithstanding  these  regret- 
able  failures  to  refer  disputes  to  the  Hague  Court  as 
peaceful  umpire,  we  have  abundant  reason  for  satis- 
faction in  the  number  of  instances  in  which  the 
Court's  award  has  already  brought  peace  without 
the  sacrifice  of  one  human  life — the  victories  which 
bring  no  tears. 

Signs  of  action  in  favor  of  universal  peace  abound. 
Among  these  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Inter-Parlia- 
mentary Union  assembled  at  St.  Louis  last  year  re- 
quested the  Governments  of  the  world  to  send  repre- 
sentatives to  an  International  Conference  to  con- 
sider : —  First,  the  questions  for  the  consideration  of 
which  the  Conference  at  the  Hague  expressed  a  wish 
that  a  future  conference  be  called.  Second,  the  nego- 
tiation of  Arbitration  Treaties  between  the  nations 
represented.  Third,  the  advisability  of  establishing 
an  International  Congress  to  be  convened  periodi- 
cally for  the  discussion  of  international  questions. 

President  Roosevelt  invited  the  nations  to  call  the 
conference,  but  has  recently  deferred  to  the  Emperor 
of  Russia  as  the  proper  party  to  call  the  nations  to- 
gether again. 

Should  the  proposed  periodic  congress  be  estab- 
lished, We  shaU  have  the  germ  of  the  Council  of  Na- 
tions, which  is  coming  to  keep  the  peace  of  the  world, 

30 


judging  between  nations,  as  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  judges  to-day  between  States  em- 
bracing an  area  larger  than  Europe.  It  will  be  no 
novelty,  but  merely  an  extension  of  an  agency  al- 
ready proved  upon  a  smaller  scale.  As  we  dwell  upon 
the  rapid  strides  towards  peace  which  man  is  making, 
the  thought  arises  that  there  may  be  those  now  pres- 
ent, who  will  hve  to  see  this  world  council  established, 
thru  which  is  sure  to  come  in  the  course  of  time 
the  banishment  of  man-slaying  among  civilized  na- 
tions. 

I  hope  my  hearers  will  follow  closely  the  proceed- 
ings of  the  Hague  Conference,  for  upon  its  ever- 
extending  sway  largely  depends  the  coming  of  the 
reign  of  peace.  Its  next  meeting  will  be  important, 
perhaps  epoch-making.  Its  creation  and  speedy  suc- 
cess prepare  us  for  surprisingly  rapid  progress. 
Even  the  smallest  further  step  taken  in  any  peaceful 
direction  would  soon  lead  to  successive  steps  there- 
after. The  tide  has  set  in  at  last,  and  is  flowing  as 
never  before  for  the  principle  of  Arbitration  as 
against  War. 

So  much  for  the  Temple  of  Peace  at  the  Hague.  !*\ 
Permit  me  a  few  words  upon  Arbitration  in  general./ 

The  statesmen  who  first  foresaw  and  proved  the 
benefits  of  modern  arbitration  were  Washington, 
Franklin,  Hamilton,  Jay  and  Grenville. 

As  early  as  1780  Franklin  writes,  "We  make  daily 
great  improvements  in  Natural,  there  is  one  I  wish 
to  see  in  Moral,  Philosophy — the  discovery  of  a  plan 
that  would  induce  and  oblige  nations  to  settle  their 
disputes  without  first  cutting  each  other's  throats." 
His  wish  was  realized  in  the  Jay  Treaty  of  1794, 

31 


from  which  modern  arbitration  dates.  It  is  note- 
worthy that  this  Treaty  was  the  child  of  our  race 
and  that  the  most  important  questions  which  arbi- 
tration has  settled  so  far  have  been  those  between  its 
,lwo  branches. 

It  may  surprise  you  to  learn  that  from  the  date 
of  the  Jay  Treaty,  one  hundred  and  eleven  years  ago, 
no  less  than  five  hundred  and  seventy-one  interna- 
tional disputes  have  been  settled  by  arbitration.  Not 
in  any  case  has  an  award  been  questioned  or  dis- 
regarded, except  I  believe  in  one  case,  where  the  arbi- 
ters misunderstood  their  powers.  If  in  every  ten  of 
these  differences  so  quietly  adjusted  without  a  wound, 
there  lurked  one  war,  it  follows  that  peaceful  settle- 
ment has  prevented  fifty-seven  wars — one  every  two 
years.  More  than  this,  had  the  fifty-seven  wars, 
assumed  as  prevented  by  arbitration,  developed,  they 
would  have  sown  the  seeds  of  many  future  wars,  for 
there  is  no  such  prolific  mother  of  wars  as  war  itself. 
Hate  breeds  hate,  quarrel  breeds  quarrels,  war  breeds 
war — a  hateful  progeny.  It  is  the  poorest  of  all 
remedies.  It  poisons  as  it  cures.  No  truer  line  was 
ever  penned  than  this  of  Milton's,  "For  what  can  war 
but  endless  war  still  breed.?" 

No  less  than  twenty-three  International  Treaties 
of  Arbitration  have  been  made  within  the  past  two 
years.  The  United  States  made  ten  with  the  prin- 
cipal Powers,  which  only  failed  to  be  formally  execut- 
ed because  the  Senate,  which  shares  with  our  Execu- 
tive the  treaty-making  power  to  the  extent  that  its 
approval  is  necessary,  thought  it  advisable  to  change 
one  word  only — "treaty"  for  "agreement" — which 
proved  unsatisfactory  to  the  Executive.    The  vote  of 

32 


the  Senate  was  almost  unanimous,  showing  an  over- 
whelming sentiment  for  arbitration.  The  internal 
difference  will  no  doubt  be  adjusted. 
1  You  will  judge  from  these  facts  how  rapidly  arbi- 
/  tration  is  spreading.  Once  tried,  there  is  no  back- 
ward step.  It  produces  peace  and  leaves  no  bitter- 
ness. The  parties  to  it  become  better  friends  than 
before;  war  makes  them  enemies. 

Much  has  been  written  upon  the  fearful  cost  of 
war  in  our  day,  the  ever-increasing  blood  tax  of  na- 
tions, which  threatens  soon  to  approach  the  point 
of  exhaustion  in  several  European  lands.  To-day 
France  leads  with  an  expenditure  of  £3  14s  and  a 
debt  of  £31  3s  8d  per  head.  Britain  follows  with  an 
annual  expenditure  of  £3  8s  8d  and  a  debt  of  £18 
10s  5d  per  head.  Germany's  expenditure  is  in  great 
contrast — only  £1  15s  4d,  not  much  more  than  one- 
third;  her  debt  £2  12s  2d,  not  one-sixth  that  of 
Britain.  Russia's  expenditure  is  £1  14s  6d,  about 
the  same  as  the  German ;  her  debt  £5  9s  9d  per  head. 

The  military  and  naval  expenditure  of  Britain  is 
fully  half  of  her  total  expenditure ;  that  of  the  other 
great  Powers,  though  less,  is  rapidly  increasing. 

All  the  great  national  debts,  with  trifling  excep- 
tions— Britain's  Eight  Hundred  Millions,  France's 
Twelve  Hundred  Millions  Sterling — are  the  legacies 
of  war. 

This  drain,  with  the  economic  loss  of  life  added, 
is  forcing  itself  upon  the  nations  concerned  as  never 
before.  It  threatens  soon  to  become  dangerous  un- 
less the  rapid  increase  of  recent  years  be  stopped; 
but  it  is  to  be  feared  that  not  till  after  the  financial 

33 


catastrophe  occurs  will  nations  devote  themselves 
seriously  to  apply  the  cure. 

The  futility  of  war  as  a  means  of  producing  peace 
between  nations  has  often  been  dwelt  upon.  It  is 
really  the  most  futile  of  all  remedies,  because  it  em- 
bitters contestants  and  sows  the  seeds  of  future 
struggles.  Generations  are  sometimes  required  to 
eradicate  the  hostility  engendered  by  one  conflict. 
War  sows  dragons'  teeth,  and  seldom  gives  to  either 
party  what  it  fought  for.  When  it  does,  the  spoil 
generally  proves  Dead  Sea  fruit.  The  recent  terrible 
war  just  concluded  is  another  case  in  point.  Neither 
contestant  obtained  what  he  fought  for,  the  reputed 
victor  being  most  of  all  disappointed  at  last  with  the 
terms  of  peace.  Had  Japan,  a  very  poor  country, 
known  that  the  result  would  be  a  debt  of  two  hundred 
millions  Sterling  loading  her  down,  or  had  Russia 
known  the  result,  differences  would  have  been  peace- 
fully arbitrated.  Such  considerations  find  no  place, 
however,  in  the  fiery  furnace  of  popular  clamor;  as 
little  do  those  of  cost  or  loss  of  life.  Only  if  the 
moral  wrong,  the  sin  in  itself,  of  man-slaying  is 
brought  home  to  the  conscience  of  the  masses  may 
we  hope  speedily  to  banish  war.  There  will,  we  fear, 
always  be  demagogs  in  our  day  to  inflame  their  brutal 
passions  and  urge  men  to  fight,  as  a  point  of  honor 
and  patriotism,  scouting  arbitration  as  a  cowardly 
refuge.  All  thoughts  of  cost  or  loss  of  human  life 
vanish  when  the  brute  in  man,  thus  aroused,  gains 
sway. 

It  is  the  crime  of  destroying  human  life  by  war  and 
the  duty  to  offer  or  accept  peaceful  arbitration  as  a 
substitute  which  needs  to  be  established,  and  which,  as 

.     34 


we  think,  those  of  the  Church,  the  Universities,  and  • 
of  the  Professions  are  called  upon  to  strongly  em- 
phasize. ^ 

If  the  principal  European  nations  were  not  free 
thru  conscription  from  the  problem  which  now  dis- 
turbs the  military  authorities  of  Britain,  the  lack  of 
sufficient  numbers  willing  to  enter  the  man-slaying 
profession,  we  should  soon  hear  the  demand  formu- 
lated for  a  League  of  Peace  among  the  nations.  The 
subject  of  war  can  never  be  studied  without  recalling 
this  simplest  of  all  modes  for  its  abolition.  Five  na- 
tions co-operated  in  quelling  the  recent  Chinese  dis-| 
orders  and  rescuing  their  representatives  in  Pekin. 
It  is  perfectly  clear  that  these  five  nations  could 
banish  war.  Suppose  even  three  of  them  formed  a 
League  of  Peace — inviting  all  other  nations  to 
join — and  agreed  that  since  war  in  any  part  of  the 
civilized  world  affects  all  nations,  and  often  seriously, 
no  nation  shall  go  to  war,  but  shall  refer  interna- 
tional disputes  to  the  Hague  Conference  or  other 
arbitral  body  for  peaceful  settlement,  the  League 
agreeing  to  declare  non-intercourse  with  any  nation 
refusing  compliance.  Imagine  a  nation  cut  off  to-M  ^ 
day  from  the  world.  The  League  also  might  reserve  ) 
to  itself  the  right,  where  non-intercourse  is  likely  to 
fail  or  has  failed  to  prevent  war,  tp  use  the  neces- 
sary force  to  maintain  peace,'  each  member  of  the 
League  agreeing  to  provide  the  needed  forces,  or 
money  in  lieu  thereof,  in  proportion  to  her  popu- 
lation or  wealth.  Being  experimental  and  upon  trial, 
it  might  be  deemed  advisable,  if  necessary,  at  first  to 
agree  that  any  member  could  withdraw  after  giving 
five  years'  notice,  and  that  the  League  should  dis- 


solve  five  years  after  a  majority  vote  of  all  the  mem- 
bers. Further  provisions,  and  perhaps  some  adap- 
tations, would  be  found  requisite,  but  the  main  idea 
is  here. 

The  Emperor  of  Russia  called  the  Hague  Confer- 
ence, which  gave  us  an  International  Tribunal.  Were 
King  Edward  or  the  Emperor  of  Germany  or  the 
President  of  France,  acting  for  their  Governments, 
to  invite  the  nations  to  send  representatives  to  con- 
sider the  wisdom  of  forming  such  a  League,  the  invi- 
tation would  no  doubt  be  responded  to  and  probably 
prove  successful. 

The  number  that  would  gladly  join  such  a  League 
would  be  great,  for  the  smaller  nations  would  wel- 
come the  opportunity. 

The  relations  between  Britain,  France,  and  the 
United  States  to-day  are  so  close,  their  aims  so  simi- 
lar, their  territories  and  fields  of  operation  so  clearly 
defined  and  so  different,  that  these  Powers  might 
^  I  properly  unite  in  inviting  other  nations  to  consider 
Ithe  question  of  such  a  League  as  has  been  sketched. 
jit  is  a  subject  well  worthy  the  attention  of  their  rul- 
Jers,  for  of  all  the  modes  of  hastening  the  end  of  war 
this  appears  the  easiest  and  the  best.  We  have  no 
reason  to  doubt  that  arbitration  in  its  present  op- 
tional form  will  continue  its  rapid  progress,  and  that 
it  in  itself  contains  the  elements  required  finally  to 
lead  us  to  peace,  for  it  conquers  wherever  it  is  tried ; 
but  it  is  none  the  less  gratifying  to  know  that  there 
is  in  reserve  a  drastic  mode  of  enforcement,  if  needed, 
whi<5n  would  promptly  banish  war. 
^^Not withstanding  all  the  cheering  signs  of  the 
growth  of  arbitration,  we  should  delude  ourselves  if 

36 


X 


we  assumed  that  war  is  immediately  to  cease,  for  it 
is  scarcely  to  be  hoped  that  the  future  has  not  to  wit- 
ness more  than  one  great  holocaust  of  men  to  be  of- 
fered up  before  the  reign  of  peace  blesses  the  earth. 
The  scoria  from  the  smoldering  mass  of  the  fiery  past, 
the  seeds  that  great  wars  have  sown,  may  be  ex- 
pected to  burst  out  at  intervals  more  and  more  re- 
mote, until  the  poison  of  the  past  is  exhausted.  That 
there  is  to  be  perfect  unbroken  peace  in  our  progress 
to  this  end  we  are  not  so  unduly  sanguine  as  to  im- 
agine. We  are  prepared  for  more  than  one  outbreak 
of  madness  and  folly  in  the  future  as  in  the  past ;  butj 
that  peace  is  to  come  at  last,  and  that  sooner,  much 
sooner  than  the  majority  of  my  hearers  can  probably 
credit,  I  for  one  entertain  not  one  particle  of  doubt,    i 

We  sometimes  hear,  in  defense  of  war,  that  it  de- 
velops the  manly  virtue  of  courage.    This  means  only 
physical  courage,  which  some  animals  and  the  lower 
order  of  savage  men  possess  in  the  highest  degree. 
According  to  this  idea,  the  more  man  resembles  the 
bulldog  the  higher  he  is   developed   as  man.      The? 
Zulus,  armed  with  spears,  rush  upon  repeating  rifles,;  | 
not  because  unduly  endowed  with  true  courage,  but| 
because  they  lack  common  sense.     One  session  or  less|^ 
at  St.  Andrews  University  would  cure  them  of  their! 
folly.    In  our  scientific  day,  beyond  any  that  has  pre- j 
ceded,  discretion  is  by  far  the  better  part  of  valor,  f 
Officers  and  men,  brave  to  a  fault,  expose  themselves 
needlessly  and  die  for  the  country  they  would  have 
better  served  by  sheltering  themselves  and  living  for. 
Physical  courage  is  far  too  common  to  be  specially 
extolled.     Japanese,  Russian   and   Turk,   Zulu   and 
Achenese  are  all  famous  for  it.    It  is  often  allied  with 
moral  cowardice.    Hotspur  is  an  ideal  physical-cour- 
age hero  when  he  exclaims — 

37 


By  heaven,  methinks  it  were  an  easy  leap. 

To  pluck  bright  honor  from  the  pale-faced  moon. 

Or  dive  into  the  bottom  of  the  deep, 

Where  fathom-line  could  never  touch  the  ground, 

And  pluck  up  drowned  honor  by  the  locks; 

So  that  he  that  doth  redeem  her  thence  might  wear 

Without  corrival  all  her  dignities. 

Vain  peacock,  unless  he  could  reap  the  glory  and 
strut  bespangled  with  glittering  decorations,  he 
cared  not  to  achieve.  All  for  himself,  nothing  for  the 
cause,  nothing  for  his  country. 

Achilles,  sulking  in  his  tent,  incensed  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  loot  and  praying  the  gods  to  defeat  his  own 
countrymen,  is  another  example  of  a  physically  cour- 

igeous  military  hero.  Fortunately  our  modem  mili- 
tary men  are  generally  of  a  different  type.  It  is  not 
jhe  individual  who  conforms  to  the  standard  of  his 

ige,  but  the  bad  standard  of  the  age  that  is  to  be 
mdemned.  Men  are  to  be  judged  only  by  the  stand- 
ard of  their  time,  and  tho  our  standard  of  to-day 
may  be  low  indeed,  the  men  conforming  to  it  are  not 
to  be  decried. 

If  you  would  be  lifted  up  and  inspired  by  worship- 
ping at  the  shrine  of  the  much  nobler  and  rarer  vir- 
tue, moral  courage,  stand  before  the  Martyrs'  Monu- 
ment yonder.  The  Martyrs  cared  nothing  for 
earthly  glory  and  honor  or  reward ;  their  duty  was  to 
stand  for  a  noble  cause,  and  for  that,  not  for  their 
own  selfish  exaltation,  they  marched  thru  fire  and 
fagot  to  death  unflinchingly,  chanting  as  they 
marched. 

There  is  one  very  encouraging  indication  of  prog- 

x&s^  within  our  race,  as  showing,  it  is  to  be  hoped, 

^  the  influence  of  education  upon  the  masses  in  evolving 

%/T^earer  ideas  of  responsibility  for  their  actions.     The 

attention  of  Parliament  was  recently  called  to  the 

difiiculty  of  obtaining  recruits  for  the  army.     The 

38 


shortage  of  officers  in  the  auxiliary  forces  (Volun- 
teers and  Militia)  is  no  less  than  twenty-five  per 
cent — one-fourth  of  the  whole.  The  MiHtia  has 
32,000  men  less  than  before.  The  Regular  Army 
lacks  242  officers,  and  the  British  Army  for  India  is 
short  12,000  British  recruits.  The  Government  pro- 
nounces this  "the  most  serious  problem  which  con- 
fronts the  military  authorities."  Some  of  the  highest 
military  authorities  see  the  final  remedy  only  in  con- 
scription. I  rejoice  to  inform  you  that  your  kin 
beyond  sea  in  America  have  on  hand  the  very  same 
problem  for  their  army  and  navy.  All  their  war- 
ships cannot  be  manned — 3500  men  are  lacking. 
From  this  shortage  of  recruits  we  are  justified  in 
concluding  that  there  is  no  longer  a  general  desire 
in  our  race  to  enter  the  services.  This  is  specially^ 
significant,  as  we  are  informed  that  increase  of  pay 
would  not  greatly  increase  recruiting,  as  recruits  are 
obtained  chiefly  from  a  certain  class.  W-e  hear  of  a 
like  trouble  in  another  profession,  a  scarcity  of 
young,  educated,  conscientious  men  desirous  of  enter- 
ing the  Ministry,  thought  to  be  owing  to  the  theo- 
logical tenets  to  which  they  are  required  to  sub- 
scribe. Both  branches  of  the  Church  in  Scotland 
have  accordingly  endeavored  to  meet  this  problem 
by  substituting  less  objectionable  terms. 

Perhaps  from  the  public  library  young  men  have 
+QVAnj^gv1jlA  f^nrl  read  how  he  describes  the  artizans 
of  Britain  and  France:  "Thirty  stand  fronting 
thirty,  each  with  a  gun  in  his  hand.  Straightway 
the  word  'fire'  is  given,  and  they  blow  the  souls  out  of 
one  another;  and  in  place  of  sixty  brisk,  useful 
craftsmen,  the  world  has  sixty  dead  carcases,  which 
it  must  bury  and  anew  shed  tears  for.  Had  these 
men  any  quarrel  ?  Busy  as  the  devil  is,  not  the  small- 
est!   They  lived  far  enough  apart,  were  the  entirest 

39 


strangers ;  nay,  in  so  wide  a  universe  there  was  even, 
unconsciously,  by  commerce,  some  mutual  helpfulness 
between  them.  How  then  ?  Simpleton !  Their  Gov- 
ernors had  fallen  out,  and,  instead  of  shooting  one 
another,  had  the  cunning  to  make  these  poor  block- 
heads shoot." 

Those  who  decline  the  advances  of  the  decorated 
Recruiting  Officer  may  have  stumbled  upon  Professor 
MacMichael's  address  to  the  Peace  Congress  at  Edin- 
burgh, 1853,  when  he  said :  "The  military  profession 
is  inconsistent  with  Christianity.  The  higher  the 
rank  and  the  greater  the  intellect,  the  more  desperate 
the  criminaUty.  Here  is  a  person  upon  whom  God 
has  conferred  the  rare  gift  of  mathematical  genius. 
If  properly  directed,  what  an  abundant  source  of 
benefit  to  mankind!  It  might  be  employed  in  the 
construction  of  railways,  by  which  the  most  distant 
parts  of  the  world  are  brought  into  communication 
with  each  other.  It  might  be  employed  in  flashing 
the  trembling  lightning  across  the  wires,  making 
them  the  medium  of  intercourse  between  loving  hearts 
thousands  of  miles  apart ;  in  increasing  the  wonderful 
powers  of  the  steam  engine,  relieving  man  from  his 
exhausting  toils  ;  in  application  to  the  printing  press, 
sending  light  and  knowledge  to  the  farthest  extremi- 
ties of  the  earth.  It  might  be  employed  in  draining 
marshes,  in  supplying  our  towns  and  cities  with 
water,  and  in  adding  to  the  health  and  happiness  of 
men.  It  might  lay  down  rules  derived  from  the  starry 
heavens,  by  which  the  mariner  is  guided  through  the 
wild  wastes  of  waters  in  the  darkest  night.  How 
noble  is  science  when  thus  directed,  but  in  the  same 
proportion  how  debasing  does  it  become  when  di- 
rected to  human  destruction!  It  is  as  if  a  chemist 
were  to  make  use  of  his  knowledge  not  to  cure  the 
diseases  of  which  humanity  is  suffering,  but  to  poison 

40 


the  springs  of  existence.  The  scientific  soldier  culti- 
vates his  endowments  for  what  purpose?  That  he 
may  determine  the  precise  direction  at  which  these 
batteries  may  vomit  forth  their  fire  so  as  to  destroy 
most  property  and  most  lives ;  that  he  may  calculate 
the  precise  angles  and  force  with  which  these  shells 
may  be  sent  up  into  the  air  that  they  may  fall  upon 
that  particular  spot  which  is  thronged  with  men,  and, 
exploding  there,  send  havoc  among  them.  Great 
God!  am  I  at  liberty  to  devote  my  faculties  to  this 
infernal  work.?" 

That  is  a  voice  from  Dunfermline  of  weighty  im- 
port. I  found  it  recently  and  rejoiced  that,  when  a 
child,  I  had  often  seen  the  man  who  wrote  these  words. 

Wyclif's  opinion  may  have  arrested  the  young 
men's  attention :  "What  honor  falls  to  a  knight  that 
kills  many  men.?  The  hangman  killeth  many  more 
and  with  a  better  title.  Better  were  it  for  men  to  be 
butchers  of  beasts  than  butchers  of  their  brethren!" 

Or  John  Wesley's  wail  may  have  struck  deep  in 
the  hearts  of  some  fit  for  recruits:  "You  may  pour 
out  your  soul  and  bemoan  the  loss  of  true,  genuine 
love  in  the  earth.  Lost  indeed!  These  Christian 
kingdoms  that  are  tearing  out  each  other's  bowels, 
desolating  one  another  with  fire  and  sword!  These 
Christian  armies  that  are  sending  each  other  by 
thousands,  by  tens  of  thousands,  quick  to  hell !" 

It  may  be  from  eminent  soldiers  that  young  men 
have  received  the  most  discouraging  accounts  of  the 
profession.  Napoleon  declared  it  "the  trade  of  bar- 
barians." Wellington  writes  Lord  Shaftesbury, 
"War  is  a  most  detestable  thing.  If  you  had  seen 
but  one  day  of  war,  you  would  pray  God  you  might 
never  see  another."  General  Grant,  offered  a  Mili- 
tary Review  by  the  Duke  of  Cambridge,  declined, 
saying  he  never  wished  to  look  upon  a  regiment  of 

41 


soldiers  again.  General  Sherman  writes  he  was  "tired 
and  sick  of  the  war.  Its  glory  is  all  moonshine.  It  is 
only  those  who  have  neither  fired  a  shot  nor  heard  the 
shrieks  and  groans  of  the  wounded,  who  cry  aloud  for 
more  blood,  more  vengeance,  more  desolation.  War 
is  HeU." 

Perhaps  some  have  pondered  over  Sir  John  Sin- 
clair's opinion  that  "the  profession  of  a  soldier  is  a 
damnable  profession." 

The  professional  soldier  is  primarily  required  for 
purposes  of  aggression,  it  being  clear  that  if  there 
were  none  to  attack,  none  to  defend  would  be  needed. 
The  Volunteer,  who  arms  only  to  be  better  able  to 
defend  his  home  and  country,  occupies  a  very  differ- 
ent position  from  the  recruit  who  enlists  uncondition- 
ally as  a  profession  and  binds  himself  to  go  forth  and 
slay  his  fellows  as  directed.  The  defense  of  home  and 
country  may  possibly  become  necessary,  altho  no 
man  living  in  Britain  or  America  has  ever  seen  inva- 
sion or  is  at  all  likely  to  see  it.  Still,  the  elements 
of  patriotism  and  duty  enter  here.  That  it  is  every 
man's  duty  to  defend  home  and  country  goes  without 
saying.  We  should  never  forget,  however,  that 
which  makes  it  a  holy  duty  to  defend  one's  home  and 
country  also  makes  it  a  holy  duty  not  to  invade  the 
country  and  home  of  others,  a  truth  which  has  not 
hitherto  been  kept  in  mind.  The  more's  the  pity,  for 
in  our  time  it  is  one  incumbent  upon  the  thoughtful 
peace-loving  man  to  remember.  The  professional 
career  is  an  affair  of  hire  and  salary.  No  duty  calls 
any  man  to  adopt  the  naval  or  military  profession 
•acftd  engage  to  go  forth  to  kill  other  men  when  and 
where  ordered,  without  reference  to  the  right  or 
wrong  of  the  quarrel.  It  is  a  serious  engagement 
involving  as  we  lookers-on  see  it  a  complete  surrender 
of  the  power  most  precious  to  man — the  right  of 

42 


private  judgment  and  appeal  to  conscience.  Jay 
the  father  of  the  first  treaty  between  Britain  ai 
America,  has  not  failed  to  point  out  that  "our 
country,  right  or  wrong,  is  rebellion  against  God 
and  treason  to  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious  liberty, 
of  justice  and  humanity." 

Just  in  proportion  as  man  becomes  truly  intelli-r- 
gent,  we  must  expect  him  to  realize  more  and  morei 
that  he  himself  alone  is  responsible  for  his  selection  \ 
of  an  occupation,  and  that  neither  Pope,  Priest  nor 
King  can  relieve  him  from  this  responsibility. 

It  was  all  very  well  for  the  untaught,  illiterate^ 
hind,  pressed  into  King  Henry's  service,  to  argue, 
"Now,  if  these  men  do  not  die  well,  it  will  be  a  black 
matter  for  the  King  that  led  them  to  it,  whom  to  dis- 
obey were  against  all  proportion  of  subjection." 
The  schoolmaster  has  been  abroad  since  then.  The 
divine  right  of  Kings  has  gone.  The  mass  of  Eng- 
lish-speaking men  now  make  and  unmake  their  Kings, 
scout  infallibility  of  power  of  Pope  or  Priest,  and 
in  extreme  cases  sometimes  venture  to  argue  a  point 
even  with  their  own  minister.  The  "Judge  within" 
begins  to  rule.  Whether  a  young  man  decides  to 
devote  his  powers  to  making  of  himself  an  efficient 
instrument  for  injuring  or  destroying,  or  for  saving 
and  serving  his  fellows,  rests  with  himself  to  decide 
after  serious  consideration. 

To  meet  the  scarcity  of  officers,  the  Government 
stated  that  it  was  considering  the  policy  of  looking 
to  the  Universities  for  the  needed  supply,  and  that 
steps  might  be  taken  to  encourage  the  study  of  war 
with  a  view  to  enlistment ;  but  if  University  students 
are  so  far  advanced  ethically  as  to  decline  pledging 
themselves  to  preach  "creeds  outworn" — rightfully 
most  careful  to  heed  the  "Judge  within,"  their  own 
conscience — ^Universities  will  probably  be  found  poor 

43 


recruiting  ground  for  men  required  to  pledge  them- 
selves to  go  forth  and  slay  their  fellowmen  at  an- 
other's bidding.  The  day  of  humiliation  will  have 
come  upon  Universities  when  their  graduates,  upon 
whom  have  been  spent  years  of  careful  education  in 
all  that  is  highest  and  best,  find  themselves  at  the  end 
good  for  nothing  better  than  "food  for  powder."  I 
think  I  hear  the  response  of  the  son  of  St.  Andrews, 
to  the  Recruiting  Officer,  "Is  thy  servant  a  dog  that 
he  should  do  this  thing.?" 

From  one  point  of  view,  the  scarcity  of  officers  and 
recruits  in  Britain  and  America,  where  men  are  free 
to  choose,  and  the  refusal  of  University  Students 
to  compromise  themselves  by  pledges  upon  entering 
the  Ministry,  is  most  cheering,  evincing  as  it  does  a 
keener  sense  of  personal  responsibility,  a  stronger 
appeal  to  conscience — the  "Judge  within" — more 
tender  and  sympathetic  natures,  a  higher  standard 
of  human  action,  and  altogether  a  higher  type  of 
man. 

If  war  requires  a  surrender  of  all  these  by  its  re- 
cruits, much  better  we  should  face  the  alternative 
and  let  Britain  and  America  depend  upon  the  pa- 
triotism of  citizens  to  defend  their  countries  if  at- 
tacked, in  which  duty  I  for  one  strongly  believe  they 
will  never  be  found  inefficient.  Colonel  Henderson,  in 
his  "Science  of  War,"  states  "that  the  American 
Volunteers  were  superior  to  the  conscript  levies  of 
Europe — that  the  morale  of  conscript  armies  has 
always  been  their  weakest  point.  The  morale  of  the 
volunteer  is  of  a  higher  type."  This  stands  to  rea- 
son. 

Should  Britain  ever  be  invaded,  the  whole  male 
population  able  to  march  would  volunteer,  and  from 
many  parts  of  the  world  thousands  would  rush  to  the 
defense  of  the  old  home.     Those  who  invade  the  land 

44 


of  Shakespeare  and  Burns  will  find  they  have  to  face 
forces  they  never  reckoned  upon.  The  hearts  and 
consciences  of  all  would  be  in  the  work ;  and  "Thrice 
is  he  armed  who  hath  his  quarrel  just." 

Students  of  St.  Andrews,  my  effort  has  been  to 
give  you  a  correct  idea  of  the  movement  now  stirring 
the  world  for  the  abolition  of  war,  and  what  it  has 
already  accomplished.  It  never  was  so  widespread 
or  so  vigorous,  nor  at  any  stage  of  the  campaign 
have  its  triumphs  been  so  numerous  and  important 
as  those  of  the  last  few  years,  beginning  with  the 
Hague  Conference,  which  in  itself  marks  an  epoch. 
Th^^ioundation  stone  of  the  structure  to  come  was 
then  laid.  The  absolute  surrender  by  four  nations 
of  all  future  differences  to  arbitration,  and  Norway 
and  Sweden's  agreement,  mark  another  stage.  Thus 
the  civilized  world  at  last  moves  steadily  to  the  reign 
of  peace  through  arbitration. 

The  question  has  no  doubt  arisen  in  your  minds, 
what  is  your  duty  and  how  can  you  best  co-operate  in 
this  holy  work  and  hasten  the  end  of  war.  I  advise 
you  to  adopt  Washington's  words  as  your  own,  "My 
first  wish  is  to  see  this  plague  of  mankind,  war,  ban- 
ished from  the  earth."  Leagues  of  Peace  might  be 
formed  over  the  world  with  these  words  as  their  motto 
and  basis  of  action.  How  are  we  to  realize  this  pious 
wish  of  Washington's?  may  be  asked.  Here  is  the 
answer.  Whenever  an  international  dispute  arises, 
no  matter  what  party  is  in  power,  demand  at  once 
that  your  Government  offer  to  refer  it  to  arbitration, 
and  if  necessary  break  with  your  party.  Peace  is 
above  party.  Should  the  adversary  have  forestalled 
your  Government  in  offering  arbitration,  which  for 
the  sake  of  our  race  I  trust  will  never  occur,  then 
insist  upon  its  acceptance  and  listen  to  nothing  until 
it  is  accepted.    Drop  all  other  public  questions,  con- 


centrate  your  efforts  upon  the  one  question  which 
carries  in  its  bosom  the  issue  of  peace  or  of  war. 
^^i^fcai5Uas«l£  y^w^  is  settled. 

This  is  the  time  to  be  effective.  And  what  should  the 
ministers  of  the  churches  be  doing.?  Very  different 
from  what  they  have  done  in  the  past.  They  should 
cease  to  take  shelter  from  the  storm,  hiding  them- 
selves in  the  recital  of  the  usual  formulas  pertaining 
to  a  future  life  in  which  men  in  this  life  have  no  duties, 
when  the  nation  is  stirred  upon  one  supreme  moral 
issue,  and  its  Government,  asserting  the  right  to  sit 
in  judgment  upon  its  own  cause,  is  on  the  brink  of 
committing  the  nation  to  unholy  war, — for  unholy 
it  must  be  if  peaceful  settlement  offered  by  an  ad- 
versary be  refused.  Refusal  to  arbitl-ate  makes  war, 
even  for  a  good  cause,  unholy ;  an  offer  to  arbitrate 
lends  dignity  and  importance  to  a  poor  one.  Should 
all  efforts  fail,  and  your  country,  rejecting  the  ap- 
peal to  judicial  arbitration,  plunge  into  war,  your 
duty  does  not  end.  Calmly  resolute  in  adherence  to 
your  convictions,  stating  them  when  called  upon,  tho 
never  violently  intruding  them,  you  await  the  result, 
which  cannot  fail  to  prove  that  those  who  stood  for 
peaceful  arbitration  chose  the  right  path  and  have 
been  wise  counselors  of  their  country.  It  is  a  mel- 
ancholy fact  that  nations  looking  back  have  usually 
to  confess  that  their  wars  have  been  blunders,  which 
means  they  have  been  crimes. 

And  the  women  of  the  land,  and  the  women  stu- 
dents of  St.  Andrews, — what  shall  they  do.^^  Not 
wait  as  usual  until  war  has  begun,  and  then,  their 
sympathies  aroused,  organize  innumerable  societies 
for  making  and  sending  necessaries  and  even  luxuries 
to  the  front,  or  join  Red  Cross  Societies  and  go  them- 
selves to  the  field,  nursing  the  wounded  that  these 
may  the  sooner  be  able  to  return  to  the  ranks  to 

46 


•  •  •• 


•  •  •• 
'•  •  •  • 


wound  others  or  be  again  wounded,  or  to  kill  or  be 
killed.  The  tender  chords  of  sympathy  for  the  in- 
jured, which  grace  women,  and  are  so  easily  stirred, 
are  always  to  be  cherished;  but  it  may  be  suggested 
that  were  their  united  voices  raised  in  stern  opposi- 
tion to  war  before  it  was  declared,  urging  the  offer 
of  arbitration,  or  in  earnest  remonstrance  against  re- 
fusing it,  one  day  of  effort  would  then  prove  more 
effective  than  months  of  it  after  war  has  begun. 

It  is  certain  that  if  the  good  people  of  all  parties 
and  creeds,  sinking  for  the  time  other  political  ques- 
tions whenever  the  issue  of  war  arises,  were  to  de- 
mand arbitration,  no  Government  dare  refuse.  They 
have  it  in  their  power  in  every  emergency  to  save 
their  country  from  war  and  ensure  unbroken  peace. 

If  in  every  constituency  there  were  organized  an 
Arbitration  League,  consisting  of  members  who 
agree  that  arbitration  of  international  disputes  must 
be  offered,  or  accepted  by  the  Government  if  offered 
by  the  adversary,  pledging  themselves  to  vote  in  sup- 
port of,  or  in  opposition  to,  political  parties  accord- 
ing to  their  action  upon  this  question,  it  is  surprising 
how  soon  both  parties  would  accept  arbitration  as  a 
policy.  I  know  of  no  work  that  would  prove  more 
fruitful  for  your  country  and  for  the  world  than  this. 
It  is  by  concentrating  upon  one  issue  that  great 
causes  are  won. 

In  this  holy  work  of  insisting  upon  arbitration, 
surely  we  may  expect  the  men  and  women  of  St. 
Andrews,  of  all  Universities  and  other  educational 
institutions,  of  all  the  churches  and  of  all  the  pro- 
fessions to  unite  and  take  a  prominent  part.  I 
quoted  the  words  of  Washington  at  the  beginning  of 
this  appeal.  Let  me  close  by  quoting  the  words  of 
Lincoln.  When  a  young  man,  employed  upon  a  trad- 
ing boat,  he  made  a  voyage  of  some  weeks'  duration 

47 


upon  the  Mississippi.  He  visited  a  slave  market, 
where  men,  women  and  children  were  not  slaughtered, 
as  formerly  in  war,  but  were  separated  and  sold  from 
the  auction  block.  His  companion  tells  that  after 
standing  for  some  time  Lincoln  turned  and  walked 
silently  away.  Lifting  his  clenched  hand,  his  first 
words  were,  "If  ever  I  get  a  chance,  I  shall  hit  this 
accursed  thing  hard."  Many  years  passed,  during 
which  he  never  failed  to  stand  forth  as  the  bitter  foe 
of  slavery  and  the  champion  of  the  slave.  This  was 
for  him  the  paramount  issue.  He  was  true  to  his 
resolve  thruout  life,  and  in  the  course  of  events  his 
time  came  at  last.  This  poor,  young  toiling  boat- 
man became  President  of  the  United  States,  and  was 
privileged  with  a  stroke  of  his  pen  to  emancipate  the 
slaves  last  remaining  in  the  civilized  world,  four  mil- 
lions in  number.  He  kept  the  faith,  and  gave  the 
lesson  for  all  of  us  in  our  day,  who  have  still  with  us 
war  in  all  its  enormity,  many  of  us  more  or  less  re- 
sponsible for  it,  because  we  have  not  hitherto  placed 
it  above  all  other  evils  and  concentrated  our  efforts 
sufficiently  upon  its  extinction.  Let  us  resolve  like 
Lincoln,  and  select  man-slaying  as  our  foe,  as  he  did 
man-selling.  Let  us,  as  he  did,  subordinate  all  other 
public  questions  to  the  one  overshadowing  question, 
and,  as  he  did,  stand  forth  upon  all  suitable  occasions 
to  champion  the  cause.  Let  us  like  him  keep  the 
faith,  and  as  his  time  came,  so  to  us  our  time  will 
come,  and,  as  it  does,  let  us  hit  accursed  war  hard 
until  we  drive  it  from  the  civilized  world,  as  he  did 
slavery. 


48 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

'^Op"^.^^^  ?°*  returned  on  time  are  subject  to  a  fine  of 


MAR  5^***   1^^^7'66-|0p|^, 
5lar  "i7TSX  LOAN  DEPT 


m  8   ^^^ 


MAY  1  9  1B3 
DEC  1-1966  8  g 


50m-7,'16 


/•-»'  ■•'•  A*.  AW  S.J  r-^ 


